Aura_Familia

[ QUOTE ]
It's funny I've argued both sides of this before. Both the "it doesn't make sense to spend on pvp" and "pvp needs attention"

The RV event was huge. I remember a ton of pvp occuring during it too. When I was logging on there was over 20 instances and most of those were "full". I know all the ones I got into were rank with pvp and very little pve occuring.

RV is dead on live though

How many instances of faultline are there right now on test. When I checked it out there was 1 and it was no where near full. And it IS the main feature of i8 imo (before they stuck in vet rewards a week or so later).

I'm honestly in the "if you build it they will come" camp. Have the previous attempts at implementing pvp been failures? ya, kinda, but that's because the dev's screwed it up imo, not because of a lack of interest.

If the pvp population isn't significant enough to warrant attention then one could question why a zone that according to my surveys has less than 2 people in it at any given time, would be completely overhauled with new art and tech (cause a bunch of cov stuff is on that map now). I know that took a lot of time and given the amount of 15-25 content already in coh that zone will likely be sparsely populated in the future as well. Is that a waste of resources?

Grandville is a graveyard most of the time and a ton of marketing and resources went into that zone. Waste?

I agree 100% that pvp is an advertised (quite heavily too) feature of this game and should be given attention soley on that principle. Does it make sense from a business perspective? Not immediately no. But if a dev supported event like the auto level rv event can pull in upward of 20-30 zone instances (most full) I would say it has potential to attract new customers. Cause lets face it pve in this game isn't attracting many new people anymore and it will only get worse as the next gen mmo's start comming out. But pvp is a unique marketing tool and coh is a unique gaming environment. The combination of the two could prove successful. WITH SUPPORT.

Frosticus

[/ QUOTE ]

/QFT.

I for one would like to see em fix stuff before adding anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ED was put in place for the future potential of Inventions. They probably have some ideas for balance in the next 6 months, we just get dead silence about what they are going to do about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! For all we know Inventions (and whatever it is Lighthouse keeps alluding to) may change both the PVE and PVP games towards further balance.

EDIT: Also I know what they say about ED. But from the previews what they have there doesn't seem like anything that would have required ED. I can think of numerous ways that what they are going for (provided that that's all that will be there--which very unlikely) without ED. Remains to be seen if ED was actually needed for invtentions to work or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also now that I think about it if inventions get us back to the whole 5 damage and 1 acc old days, (or even close enough to 4 damage, 1 acc) I need to ask what the hell was the point of of insituting ED?

[ QUOTE ]
ED was put in place for the future potential of Inventions. They probably have some ideas for balance in the next 6 months, we just get dead silence about what they are going to do about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! For all we know Inventions (and whatever it is Lighthouse keeps alluding to) may change both the PVE and PVP games towards further balance.

EDIT: Also I know what they say about ED. But from the previews what they have there doesn't seem like anything that would have required ED. I can think of numerous ways that what they are going for (provided that that's all that will be there--which very unlikely) without ED. Remains to be seen if ED was actually needed for invtentions to work or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Well.. 2 things of late:

Domination builds faster and gets a buff based on teammates.. not exactly a generally desired buff.. but a change without making numbers lower or less effective

Brutes -- okay.. not getting my hopes up -- _Castle_ at one point said paraphrased, we might have an answer, give us at least 2 weeks about Fury being busted in PvP.

Two positive things for Villains. I think they are to the point where they are at their lowest. Inventions has the potential to be a buff (unbalancing, definitely) but once again, not a decrease in numbers nor a diminishing on a self-effecting basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is inventions are buffing EVERYONE. Heroes and villans. So how is it making villans closer to heroes if the heroes are getting the buffs too. They should actually look at BUFFING villans and their PPPs.

And not nerfing heroes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think balance within ATs is achievable to a decent degree, see my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen your post and I still don't have faith that THIS DEV team can do it. No offense to the DEVs, are think they are the most amazing group of programmers, artists and the like that I have ever seen. But their lack of PVP experience shows.

And their past changes (and they way there were done) do not give me much faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I see your point. But another point of this thread is to help them realize what they're doing wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Provided they intend to focus on PVP anytime soon.

[ QUOTE ]
*Add this to the quote:
The place to start would be tanks in my opinion, take a look at the tank sets in general. All the Defensive sets work a little differently but yet all have their strengths and weaknesses and can be made viable in PVP with little or no tweaking at this point..in essence they have achieved relative balance although clearly they are very different in the way they function.

Now look at the offensive side of tanks and this is where the devs just dont get it..with tanks there is really only 1 PVP set and its EM, the massive burst damage in a less resisted type + heavy Stuns = victory. The other sets lag very far behind in some cases they are completly non existent because they suck so friggen bad when compared to energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then they should buff the other sets. But as history shows this may not be the choice they make.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To achieve balance they must make toons different enough so that it doesnt just come down to burst damage which is how the PVP in this game works currently.

[/ QUOTE ]
The begining to my section on balance. A well written response by BigNord

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Good point. But can this DEV team with as little PVP experience as it seems they have, actually do it? You have more faith than I do.

EDIT: Hell they still haven't been able to get base raids working in over a YEAR!

[ QUOTE ]
I think balance within ATs is achievable to a decent degree, see my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen your post and I still don't have faith that THIS DEV team can do it. No offense to the DEVs, are think they are the most amazing group of programmers, artists and the like that I have ever seen. But their lack of PVP experience shows.

And their past changes (and they way there were done) do not give me much faith.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how balancing kills PvE enjoyment either, wouldn't it be great to finally team with an archery blaster or something else that's 'gimp' in PvE...
That's still beyond the point though, all I want right now is a few arena fixes that are a year overdue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. But the fear is that the DEVs won't make that gimp archery blaster great or even acceptable. Its that they will gimp everyone else. And based on the DEVs past actions that's not an unreasonable fear. They usually make changes that require a scapel, with a sledgehammer.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Balance will never be found in this game. They should FIRST focus on arena, base raids, etc. Fixing the mechanics. Then try to get to balance later. I would say after I9's inventions. Trying to get balance now while that potentially pvp game breaking additon is right around the corner would be developer time managment suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
The balance we're talking about in this thread isn't an empath versus a ice/em blaster 1v1, no it's about balance between sets in the same archetype that should serve essentially the same purpose, but do not (see, tanker attack sets)
But, I doubt anybody here READ my post.
EDIT:
And if people would read the posts before Lighthouse posts or some of the posts after that, fixing bugs it the number one thing wanted by this (see the roughly 10 times I wrote fix the arena bugs or w/e)

[/ QUOTE ]


True. But again balancing should come last and I seriously believe in a game this diverse/complex you can never achieve it. The bug fixes (such as the arena fixes) should come first.

[ QUOTE ]
Near the end of the event, it ended up with 30 heroes camping 5 villains in the base. I'm sure that had alot to do with souring the RV experience for Live... So did the pillbox swapping and folks getting virtiolic when hunting their badges. This is in addition, mind you, to the HvV imbalances, the exploits, base camping, droning, and all the other little flaws that aren't going to be approached by Crptic in time.. but according to Lighthouse, definitely not SOON(tm).

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. See my other post. LOL.

I think its also that once the badge hunters got their badges and noticed all the crap you mentioned above the left. Probably the same thing would have happened on test regardless of the insta lvl 40 if they let the event go on on there for any length of time.

Villans needs some buffs desperately. Especially the PPPs.

[ QUOTE ]
The time it took to RV to get to one instance the rest of the test server was nearly empty. I7 was like a day from when it was going live (unknown to us all).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. But I think it shows that the zones the way they are constructed also need work. Hell the pill box farming and truces in that zone make baby jesus cry.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One of the things that PvPers say a lot is that there's no challenge in PvE. Well that's because you don't look for challenge. Can you solo a TF, including the AV at the end? Can you solo a Giant Monster? Those things can be done. And it's a hell of a lot harder than taking some pimped out build into PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I think most PvPers like to PvP because it is a challenge to face a thinking opponent.

AV's, Giant Monsters, etc are 'hard' not because they are 'challenging' but because they have huge amounts of HP or damage or regen. They are still scripted and will perform the same way each time. A human opponent on the other hand will not. Therein lies the challenge and fun and excitement of PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience, mindless fotm/nub-only PvPers are tediously predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way?

[/ QUOTE ]
His post makes sense now, I fixed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

/agreed. You did fix it. But let's not kid ourselves. That's a significant portion of the PvP population. I like to play with friends because then you're likely to get tactics you don't see all the time (even if they aren't the most effective).

As an aside, one of the most tense, challenging PvP games I've played is the Pokemon Colloseum games. One of the things I find EXTREMELY sad about CoX is that Pokemon, a game presumably for kids, has MUCH more balanced PvP than anything you find in CoX and strangely enough has just as many valid combinations.

That's why when you "hardcore" PvPers write those joke posts about Pokemon, I can't help but lol a bit. Snorlax is uber yo!

[/ QUOTE ]

Balance will never be found in this game. They should FIRST focus on arena, base raids, etc. Fixing the mechanics. Then try to get to balance later. I would say after I9's inventions. Trying to get balance now while that potentially pvp game breaking additon is right around the corner would be developer time managment suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
But all of this is beside the point.
This thread isn't ABOUT how many PvE'rs:PvP'ers there are (though, I believe I showed an expample of a substantial PvP community in my original post), I'm sure the PvE'rs dwarf PvP'ers count, but to say there isn't a substantial PvP community by basing it on how many people happen to PvP at a random time on a random server, and that therefore working to make PvP better, even to fix bugs is flawed, and that'd undeniable.

[/ QUOTE ]

PVP needs fixes. I would say they should roll out fixes (and PVE content) on a rolling basis. None of this sticking it all in this one giant issue stuff. It slows down development.

It would also make it easier to do pvp fixes and add pve content.

EX: the vet rewards did not need a whole issue (and I argue that they are slowing down I8's release). They could have been released after or before I8's other items in a mini-patch. Same thing with PVP fixes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you didn't answer my question. If it had been stated that this was just a grand test of pvp on the TEST server without the lvl 40 insta level and free enhancements would you have seen those 30 instances?

I'll ask it in another way. If the reason we saw those huge instances was because of the PVP and not the insta-lvl 40, how come TEST isn't like that right now? I mean the only change is that there isn't an insta-lvl 40, but the PVP still remains on TEST. So what's the difference Manchuwook? I'm asking you honestly. If the pvp was the reason that event was so popular why isn't TEST like that RIGHT NOW?

Could it be that those peeps in the 30 instances found out how imablanced really is and that's why regular TEST isn't like that? Well I would expect there to be at least 5 instances if that were the case right? Is that how TEST is RIGHT NOW though? If not, then why is that? And which was more important to people, the PVP or the insta-lvl 40? Cause that insta lvl 40 code is the only thing missing on TEST right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this question "Would your view of world politics change if you were of a different gender?". Ehh, who knows. What we do know is what happened during the event that took place. You can cast doubt on the interpretation of that data if you wish, but what happened is fact. Is test not as popular because of this code being removed or because there is no event going on? I don't know. Is it because there is no new PvP zone to try out? I don't know.

From the testimony that I have heard many people enjoyed that they could create a toon and try out PvP. They had a good time and they never PvP. A big part of it is that it didn't take them 300hours to level up the toon to go PvP. Also, if their first creation was a dud they could create another idea and try that out. Now given that is a small sample size so you can apply it to a group.

In the cases that I mentioned above people enjoyed the event for many reasons:

- Chance to test out character concepts
- Lots of people in a PvP zone to play against
- A new zone to try out

As a feature is improved more people will start to utilize that feature. Doesn't that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But I still am skeptical. They were there to test out RV. It would have not been possible if they were not insta lvled to 40. How they hell would they have been able to test it out. Also realize at the time RV was the first new zone for heroes in quite a long time. Which explains for a month after RV went live that the zone was hopping. Then as the others it slowly thined out. (Though that might be because RV has so MANY broken mechanics).

I still say the PVP was secondary. Getting to test out any number of builds without having to lvl them all the way was more the main draw. That and the fact that this was a new zone to actually test.

Also I just find it funny that a zone that lets you use ALL your powers (a common argument from non-pvp centric folk) has not really seen 100 people at any time since after the few weeks when I7 went live.

[ QUOTE ]
Because there are alot of people who don't spend their fridays at 11 PM in a PvP zone and the live servers are all at best 1/10 the population of test...
Also; they only said directly that only RV would be accessible on the European forums, and I'm sure less people read those than people who knew about being able to exit to Grandville and Atlas...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I kinda figured it would be only RV when I read the description of the event. It would be kind of dumb on the DEVs part to give everyone insta 40s to test out a new zone, if those insta testing only characters could totally avoid the zone they were meant to test.

ACK! Quick reply strikes again!

Hmmm, I think I see your point.

but then my question is what does it take to get high pop pvp zones? I would argue that if you had that insta lvl 40 thing on live you might see high pop. So then it goes back to the old "can we please have a pvp and pve build" which sadly the devs seem to ignore.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the work around for the arena would be an option to turn inspirations on or off for each match.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you'd get the posts and questions "why can't i do that in open zones." To me it seems people would expect inspirations to be usable in an open zone as oppossed to the arena, where both parties can agree to turn the off. Me, I wouldn't mind if you had the option to turn them off in either setting. Yes, I know this would be harder to implement in the open zones--perhaps have to instances of each pvp zone? One tagged insp allowed, and another tagged NO insp allowed?

I personally wouldn't mind this.

But from responses from other threads about simply putting a cooldown period on inspirations, I'd say there would be many people that would put up a hissy fit about not being able to use inspirations in the zones.

Also how would you justify being able to use them in the arena and not in a pvp zone?

You don't get what i'm saying. I'm not saying the pvp wasn't fun. I'm trying to ask a logical question.

And you didn't answer my question. If it had been stated that this was just a grand test of pvp on the TEST server without the lvl 40 insta level and free enhancements would you have seen those 30 instances?

I'll ask it in another way. If the reason we saw those huge instances was because of the PVP and not the insta-lvl 40, how come TEST isn't like that right now? I mean the only change is that there isn't an insta-lvl 40, but the PVP still remains on TEST. So what's the difference Manchuwook? I'm asking you honestly. If the pvp was the reason that event was so popular why isn't TEST like that RIGHT NOW?

Could it be that those peeps in the 30 instances found out how imablanced really is and that's why regular TEST isn't like that? Well I would expect there to be at least 5 instances if that were the case right? Is that how TEST is RIGHT NOW though? If not, then why is that? And which was more important to people, the PVP or the insta-lvl 40? Cause that insta lvl 40 code is the only thing missing on TEST right now.

EDIT: Oh and since I'm such a bigot I guess all my post about fixing the Arena and my suggestions to fix pvp show how much I hate pvp. Logic for the loss.

[ QUOTE ]
Can I please ask a simple question? At what point do both sides of this pointless argument turn into creative suggestions? Sorry but the devs have given PVP attention, a little thing called RV in I7 should make my point. So, there is a commitment by them to the PVP crowd. Now we need to figure out what is broken and what should be fixed, in priorities.

I am not a BIG PVPer but I do go in at least once a week and find I love the heightened anxiety of being in the zones great fun. I don't know all the issues the hardcore PVPers are encountering but it seems the #1 issue is PVP balance. This also would be the most difficult to address because you say balance and PVE people yell NERF! I love to hear some creative ideas.

I long for new content, like most others. At some point the new issue march is going to need a pause while the devs/designers concentrate completely on the bugs. Arena is broke so bad that maybe they should consider closing it until they fix it. Instead of putting a terminal in Pocket D to expose more users to it's flaws and frustrations. Also, the fixes should not come in one large "bombs away" they should be immediately released after testing. This way the fixes are coming quickly to the community and not every 4 months. Love the new content but the devs need to get there hands around the bugs with a bit more information in regards to ETA's on there fixes.

I feel the devs have committed to PVP but now they should show good faith and start to address it's problems.

Flame on!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. They need to fix what is there. NOT add more. Putting arena terminals in Pocket D while not fixing the arena bugs is arena pvp suicide. Heh, you think peeps are turned off right now, wait till they meet the arena bugs. lol

But seriously, how about some suggestions about what things to fix. And we should focus on try broken things.

I'll start:
1-Fix the arena bugs. Nuff said.
2-Open PPPs to heros and APPs to villans. Or brings PPPs up to the lvl of PPPs. NO nerfs. Buff!
3-Put in a counter inspiration for BFs.
4-NO nerfs. Buffs to powersets that are lagging in PVP. (Make it a PVP-only buff if need be. We know they can do that already. i.e. Hurricane.
New one: 5-make pvp missions where heros and villans can face of in an instanced mission with objectives. (This has been suggested repeatedly, but I've never seen a red name comment on it.)

Ok discuss, contradict, suggest away.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the events attendance was in anyway a measure of the player audiences demand for PvP..

[/ QUOTE ]

The term is 'in any way, shape, or form' in which you have summarily shot yourself in the foot. You're in fact saying, that because a new PvP zone came out and that there were 30 instances of it, it was by no stretch of the imagination an indicator of the folks that were interested in PvP. This is like walking into a meth lab and saying that they don't make drugs here.

200 players per instance, 30 instances, 15$ a month, 2 years = $2,160,000.00. Unless that is your monthly salary, I think a little more than a few hours a week can justify that 'asset' to alot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I argue with his language too. It's overgeneralizing too much. But the point still stands.

Would the event have generated the same level of attention if it did not include an auto level to 40? Not saying it wouldn't have generated a lot of peeps (Hell the vet rewards filled TEST when they came out) but realistically would it have generated so many instances if it was just a "bring your character to TEST to test pvp" event with no auto leveling and free enhancements?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Quote]


Did you see the test of RV when there was auto-leveling to 40? PvP still draws plenty of support, WHEN IT WORKS.


[/ QUOTE ]



No, Unfortunately I missed it

How many players were on and how long did it last?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so this all doesn't sound like tossing yourself into the fire...

The test RV event was very fun, and absolutely HUGE. If I remember correctly, I saw over 30 instances of RV listed as FULL (which I think is 200 players, correct me if I'm wrong) and there were several more besides.

If that particular event is any indication, than the PvP events would have HUGE turnouts, and even better turnout and popularity if PvP was more attractive for regular usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to question this. If the TEST event had not enabled auto leveling to 40 would it have attracted as many people? I think people were there more to see what some other sets at lvl 40 play like. What if it had been a PVE test, with everyone lvled to 40? Would it have had the same turnout. I don't know but I have a feeling it would have. I think people came out more for the idea of getting to see what their low level character at 40 is than the PVP.

But it's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Also /signed on the need for PVP fixes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QR:[ QUOTE ]
I'm in a friggin bubble and can't ask other people what they want. Hell I can't even see tells. ...And even if could, there's no way to SHOW anyone else all the options that are available.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's enabled in your Keymap, hit "C" to bring up your chat window while in the base editor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. But is this documented anywhere where most players can find it? If not, how did you discover this cool feature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a little bit of a butterfinger, it's not uncommon for me to accidentally toggle off components of my UI. It's how I learned T is for Target, N is for Navigation and C is for Chat in the Keymap.

Once inside the base editor, it just seemed reasonable to give it a try. If I'm not mistaken there's a Keymap guide in the manual (granted, one of those bits perhaps many people gloss over), as well as explicitly viewable in-game in the Kemapping options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a reposne I posted to someone else:
I think for me the problem is the Base designer needs better documentation. I had often heard the comment (from various sgs/vgs I've been in since bases came out0 that when someone is desgning a base they can't hear you (see your chat), thus being able to open the chat window while designing DOES appear to be a very little documented feature--and thus goes back to idea that the base builder is counter intuitive in most things and needs better documentation. I'm not the first to make this point if you look back in this thread.

-------------------------

With that said I agree, most people don't read the manual. they should. But I get from tallking to most people that it's not really intiutive that this should work with the base designer.

And just to be clear, so you and others are saying that as you design the base (are moving things around and rotating thngs) you can hit "C" and the chat window will overlay the base builder screen, so you can see chat as you design? If that's the case then, it REALLY isn't intiuitive to think that would work.

Does this mean that other windows as well would work? You could overlay the map to see it while base building for instance? Don't meant to thread jack, but it seems there are A LOT of base builders who DON'T know this. If this works as you say its valuable info that I can take to my base builder.

Also it doesn't change the fact that just because you can talk to others in your sg as you design doesn't mean they can see what you are desinging as you do. Which I think was one of the main points, in terms of this entire thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right but how many people would think that it could be toggled on again in the base editor. Hell, how many people know that "C" is the chat toggle. In addition, what if that "c" is assigned to something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is just a case of RTFM. Hard to complain that the fact that someone doesn't know that C brings up the chat window is the Devs fault. Rather, it would seem a kindness to point this out to Ilr and at least give him one more small tool to aid in the design process. Could things be done better? Yes. But let's not take points away for problems that actaully are just a result of being uninformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think for me the problem is the Base designer needs better documentation. I had often heard the comment (from various sgs/vgs I've been in since bases came out0 that when someone is desgning a base they can't hear you (see your chat), thus being able to open the chat window while designing DOES appear to be a very little documented feature--and thus goes back to idea that the base builder is counter intuitive in most things and needs better documentation. I'm not the first to make this point if you look back in this thread.